|
ah... why don't they just give terran back the science vessel? A mine layer would also be nice. Give us back defensive matrix, lock down and irradiate. Let zerg have dark swarm and their lurkers. protoss can have mind control and probably their most missed unit: the reaver. Or the Arbiter, which isn't restricted to just one and has that encasement ability and recall. or just put those abilities in the warp prism. The mothership obviously suffers because it's only one ship. And carriers aren't terrible. Unlike battlecruisers.
Terran has enough static defenses. Blizzard needs to increase micro battles to make the game more exciting, not just depend on macro battles where two big armies wrestle for positioning and the person with the better positioning wins. Casters are the answer, not moar death-defying units. I think ravens are fine as they are - maybe a speed upgrade? but they have too many costly upgrades as is. I also think that feedback should do damage to mech, but maybe not as much. Anyway, there are tons of ways for protoss to deal with mech. i think almost every protoss unit is built to destroy mech.
I think trap/ ambush mechanics might be interesting. there aren't enough trap mechanics in SC2. Only zerg has them (burrow). Terran used to have spider mines and Protoss had the arbiter.
|
Make it so that the Nexus can transfer it's shield energy from it's shields to the shields of the units. That would be interesting strategically and help protosses with early expanding. It's a much better solution than giving it an attack of some sort.
|
On April 14 2012 08:13 deviator wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2012 08:03 Scila wrote:On April 14 2012 06:29 deviator wrote:
IMO, Terran needs more AOE units. Protoss has Colossi and Zerg has Banes. And Hellions aren't that great of a unit, the battle hellion has shit range. They NEED the Shredder to deal with chargelots and mass ling No, AOE ruins this game. Just look at Protoss. Colossus are stupid units with super low micro requirements and do devastating damage to everything on the ground. If anything, Blizzard simply needs to fix Terran late game. Make seeker missile viable by increasing range and speed. Make Thors/BC/Raven viable vs Toss by making mechanical units immune to Feedback, or at least Immune to the damage portion. Buff mech (as they are pretty much doing with HOTS) , give bio a nerf, and Terran will be in a perfect state. No more of these dumb situations where Terran and the other races have a super high or super low chance to win in early/mid/late game. AOE does not ruin the game. If anything, the Colossus makes the Terran or Zerg have to split their units and dodge them lasers. And if the Terran has more AOE units, then Protoss and Zerg will have to think up more and different strats.
yes it does.
one of the main problems with SC2 is terrible terrible damage that leads to short fights that cannot be microed and are boring for the spectator.
aside from general bad damage design (hydra glass cannon and constant-stim-marines anyone?) the problem lies with the movement-AI that favours clumping. This clumping increases the damage of units per area manifold without any micro required.
It, however, also enhances the potency of AOEs towards the ridiculous, making AOEs very hard to balance, because on the one hand you want AOEs like psi storm, colossi-lasers, or fungal growth to be strong even when only hitting 4-5 units but on the other hand you also cannot make it too strong against large numbers of units. --> you have to fiddle with damage and area but in the end there is no good middle ground because of the prevalence of hardcore clumping.
|
On April 14 2012 08:24 archonOOid wrote:
Make it so that the Nexus can transfer it's shield energy from it's shields to the shields of the units. That would be interesting strategically and help protosses with early expanding. It's a much better solution than giving it an attack of some sort.
Yeah, like a sort of heal mechanic. Wasn't there something like that in BW? A place where you can recharge shields?
The shield battery! That's what it's called!
|
This is just stupid. Blizzard isn't making a game that is going live long with such a dry-looking futur for higher level esports since they are catering lower level players with units that deal with specific builds instead of units that actually would make the game evolue.
Note that carriers are still removed from HOTS.
|
On April 14 2012 08:27 KULA_u wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2012 08:13 deviator wrote:On April 14 2012 08:03 Scila wrote:On April 14 2012 06:29 deviator wrote:
IMO, Terran needs more AOE units. Protoss has Colossi and Zerg has Banes. And Hellions aren't that great of a unit, the battle hellion has shit range. They NEED the Shredder to deal with chargelots and mass ling No, AOE ruins this game. Just look at Protoss. Colossus are stupid units with super low micro requirements and do devastating damage to everything on the ground. If anything, Blizzard simply needs to fix Terran late game. Make seeker missile viable by increasing range and speed. Make Thors/BC/Raven viable vs Toss by making mechanical units immune to Feedback, or at least Immune to the damage portion. Buff mech (as they are pretty much doing with HOTS) , give bio a nerf, and Terran will be in a perfect state. No more of these dumb situations where Terran and the other races have a super high or super low chance to win in early/mid/late game. AOE does not ruin the game. If anything, the Colossus makes the Terran or Zerg have to split their units and dodge them lasers. And if the Terran has more AOE units, then Protoss and Zerg will have to think up more and different strats. yes it does. one of the main problems with SC2 is terrible terrible damage that leads to short fights that cannot be microed and are boring for the spectator. aside from general bad damage design (hydra glass cannon and constant-stim-marines anyone?) the problem lies with the movement-AI that favours clumping. This clumping increases the damage of units per area manifold without any micro required. It, however, also enhances the potency of AOEs towards the ridiculous, making AOEs very hard to balance, because on the one hand you want AOEs like psi storm, colossi-lasers, or fungal growth to be strong even when only hitting 4-5 units but on the other hand you also cannot make it too strong against large numbers of units. --> you have to fiddle with damage and area but in the end there is no good middle ground because of the prevalence of hardcore clumping.
You're just some random SC2 hater/BW elitist and you probably can't handle the death ball, that's why you're saying this type of misinformed information. It's just your opinion. I've seen plenty of people who micro around Colossi and storm and fungal. If you can't do it, doesn't mean it's bad.
Swing and miss, slugger.
|
On April 14 2012 08:47 deviator wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2012 08:27 KULA_u wrote:On April 14 2012 08:13 deviator wrote:On April 14 2012 08:03 Scila wrote:On April 14 2012 06:29 deviator wrote:
IMO, Terran needs more AOE units. Protoss has Colossi and Zerg has Banes. And Hellions aren't that great of a unit, the battle hellion has shit range. They NEED the Shredder to deal with chargelots and mass ling No, AOE ruins this game. Just look at Protoss. Colossus are stupid units with super low micro requirements and do devastating damage to everything on the ground. If anything, Blizzard simply needs to fix Terran late game. Make seeker missile viable by increasing range and speed. Make Thors/BC/Raven viable vs Toss by making mechanical units immune to Feedback, or at least Immune to the damage portion. Buff mech (as they are pretty much doing with HOTS) , give bio a nerf, and Terran will be in a perfect state. No more of these dumb situations where Terran and the other races have a super high or super low chance to win in early/mid/late game. AOE does not ruin the game. If anything, the Colossus makes the Terran or Zerg have to split their units and dodge them lasers. And if the Terran has more AOE units, then Protoss and Zerg will have to think up more and different strats. yes it does. one of the main problems with SC2 is terrible terrible damage that leads to short fights that cannot be microed and are boring for the spectator. aside from general bad damage design (hydra glass cannon and constant-stim-marines anyone?) the problem lies with the movement-AI that favours clumping. This clumping increases the damage of units per area manifold without any micro required. It, however, also enhances the potency of AOEs towards the ridiculous, making AOEs very hard to balance, because on the one hand you want AOEs like psi storm, colossi-lasers, or fungal growth to be strong even when only hitting 4-5 units but on the other hand you also cannot make it too strong against large numbers of units. --> you have to fiddle with damage and area but in the end there is no good middle ground because of the prevalence of hardcore clumping. You're just some random SC2 hater/BW elitist and you probably can't handle the death ball, that's why you're saying this type of misinformed information. It's just your opinion. I've seen plenty of people who micro around Colossi and storm and fungal. If you can't do it, doesn't mean it's bad. Swing and miss, slugger.
Im betting you are not older than 18. Am i rite or am i rite?
User was warned for this post
|
On April 14 2012 08:27 KULA_u wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2012 08:13 deviator wrote:On April 14 2012 08:03 Scila wrote:On April 14 2012 06:29 deviator wrote:
IMO, Terran needs more AOE units. Protoss has Colossi and Zerg has Banes. And Hellions aren't that great of a unit, the battle hellion has shit range. They NEED the Shredder to deal with chargelots and mass ling No, AOE ruins this game. Just look at Protoss. Colossus are stupid units with super low micro requirements and do devastating damage to everything on the ground. If anything, Blizzard simply needs to fix Terran late game. Make seeker missile viable by increasing range and speed. Make Thors/BC/Raven viable vs Toss by making mechanical units immune to Feedback, or at least Immune to the damage portion. Buff mech (as they are pretty much doing with HOTS) , give bio a nerf, and Terran will be in a perfect state. No more of these dumb situations where Terran and the other races have a super high or super low chance to win in early/mid/late game. AOE does not ruin the game. If anything, the Colossus makes the Terran or Zerg have to split their units and dodge them lasers. And if the Terran has more AOE units, then Protoss and Zerg will have to think up more and different strats. yes it does. one of the main problems with SC2 is terrible terrible damage that leads to short fights that cannot be microed and are boring for the spectator. aside from general bad damage design (hydra glass cannon and constant-stim-marines anyone?) the problem lies with the movement-AI that favours clumping. This clumping increases the damage of units per area manifold without any micro required. It, however, also enhances the potency of AOEs towards the ridiculous, making AOEs very hard to balance, because on the one hand you want AOEs like psi storm, colossi-lasers, or fungal growth to be strong even when only hitting 4-5 units but on the other hand you also cannot make it too strong against large numbers of units. --> you have to fiddle with damage and area but in the end there is no good middle ground because of the prevalence of hardcore clumping.
AoE isn't what's overpowered or never was since BW. It's the clumping that's made it essential in SC2. If players had the APM (or blizzard wanted to increase collision box sizes) to keep their units from clumping it'd be drastically mitigated. Even then, it's required for protoss because gateway units are inferior without upgrades/forcefields.
|
On April 14 2012 08:47 deviator wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2012 08:27 KULA_u wrote:On April 14 2012 08:13 deviator wrote:On April 14 2012 08:03 Scila wrote:On April 14 2012 06:29 deviator wrote:
IMO, Terran needs more AOE units. Protoss has Colossi and Zerg has Banes. And Hellions aren't that great of a unit, the battle hellion has shit range. They NEED the Shredder to deal with chargelots and mass ling No, AOE ruins this game. Just look at Protoss. Colossus are stupid units with super low micro requirements and do devastating damage to everything on the ground. If anything, Blizzard simply needs to fix Terran late game. Make seeker missile viable by increasing range and speed. Make Thors/BC/Raven viable vs Toss by making mechanical units immune to Feedback, or at least Immune to the damage portion. Buff mech (as they are pretty much doing with HOTS) , give bio a nerf, and Terran will be in a perfect state. No more of these dumb situations where Terran and the other races have a super high or super low chance to win in early/mid/late game. AOE does not ruin the game. If anything, the Colossus makes the Terran or Zerg have to split their units and dodge them lasers. And if the Terran has more AOE units, then Protoss and Zerg will have to think up more and different strats. yes it does. one of the main problems with SC2 is terrible terrible damage that leads to short fights that cannot be microed and are boring for the spectator. aside from general bad damage design (hydra glass cannon and constant-stim-marines anyone?) the problem lies with the movement-AI that favours clumping. This clumping increases the damage of units per area manifold without any micro required. It, however, also enhances the potency of AOEs towards the ridiculous, making AOEs very hard to balance, because on the one hand you want AOEs like psi storm, colossi-lasers, or fungal growth to be strong even when only hitting 4-5 units but on the other hand you also cannot make it too strong against large numbers of units. --> you have to fiddle with damage and area but in the end there is no good middle ground because of the prevalence of hardcore clumping. You're just some random SC2 hater/BW elitist and you probably can't handle the death ball, that's why you're saying this type of misinformed information. It's just your opinion. I've seen plenty of people who micro around Colossi and storm and fungal. If you can't do it, doesn't mean it's bad. Swing and miss, slugger.
...What? He brings up a lot of very valid points. The unit clumping in SC2 *does* make a lot of deathballs a lot stronger than in BW. (I realize they're two different games, but they are comparable). it makes balls of marines, and a stalkers substantially stronger.
It also increases the power of AOE units (Banelings, colossi, fungal, storm) because all the units are a lot more tightly packed together.
I personally don't care for gigantic amounts of splash damage. it makes watching things incredibly boring. And if the observer of a match is somewhere else for a few seconds, the entire battle can already be decided.
There's no need to step in and act like you're a cool guy because you're standing up for SC2. SC2 is fun, and we all enjoy watching it. having all engagements last very very short periods of time isn't necessarily a good thing. It further reinforces the idea that you need to keep all your units closer together, because if your little straggler of 1/3 of your army gets caught out in the open trying to flank, it's just instantly destroyed.
But then again, maybe people enjoy watching two players build up for 10 minutes so they can watch a 10 second engagement. I could be in the minority. That's always a possibility.
|
On April 14 2012 09:14 Tyrant0 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2012 08:27 KULA_u wrote:On April 14 2012 08:13 deviator wrote:On April 14 2012 08:03 Scila wrote:On April 14 2012 06:29 deviator wrote:
IMO, Terran needs more AOE units. Protoss has Colossi and Zerg has Banes. And Hellions aren't that great of a unit, the battle hellion has shit range. They NEED the Shredder to deal with chargelots and mass ling No, AOE ruins this game. Just look at Protoss. Colossus are stupid units with super low micro requirements and do devastating damage to everything on the ground. If anything, Blizzard simply needs to fix Terran late game. Make seeker missile viable by increasing range and speed. Make Thors/BC/Raven viable vs Toss by making mechanical units immune to Feedback, or at least Immune to the damage portion. Buff mech (as they are pretty much doing with HOTS) , give bio a nerf, and Terran will be in a perfect state. No more of these dumb situations where Terran and the other races have a super high or super low chance to win in early/mid/late game. AOE does not ruin the game. If anything, the Colossus makes the Terran or Zerg have to split their units and dodge them lasers. And if the Terran has more AOE units, then Protoss and Zerg will have to think up more and different strats. yes it does. one of the main problems with SC2 is terrible terrible damage that leads to short fights that cannot be microed and are boring for the spectator. aside from general bad damage design (hydra glass cannon and constant-stim-marines anyone?) the problem lies with the movement-AI that favours clumping. This clumping increases the damage of units per area manifold without any micro required. It, however, also enhances the potency of AOEs towards the ridiculous, making AOEs very hard to balance, because on the one hand you want AOEs like psi storm, colossi-lasers, or fungal growth to be strong even when only hitting 4-5 units but on the other hand you also cannot make it too strong against large numbers of units. --> you have to fiddle with damage and area but in the end there is no good middle ground because of the prevalence of hardcore clumping. AoE isn't what's overpowered or never was since BW. It's the clumping that's made it essential in SC2. If players had the APM (or blizzard wanted to increase collision box sizes) to keep their units from clumping it'd be drastically mitigated. Even then, it's required for protoss because gateway units are inferior without upgrades/forcefields.
I feel like this is pretty accurate. But I also feel like the warp mechanic keeps the protoss gateway army from getting these buffs, due to the fact that if you make them stronger, all of a sudden 4gate becomes incredibly strong. Or some other similar solely gateway push. Which pushes you back and causes you to want to buff the others, or nerf protoss in a different way (zealot building again?? hah.)
Edit; sorry for double post.
|
On April 14 2012 08:47 deviator wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2012 08:27 KULA_u wrote:On April 14 2012 08:13 deviator wrote:On April 14 2012 08:03 Scila wrote:On April 14 2012 06:29 deviator wrote:
IMO, Terran needs more AOE units. Protoss has Colossi and Zerg has Banes. And Hellions aren't that great of a unit, the battle hellion has shit range. They NEED the Shredder to deal with chargelots and mass ling No, AOE ruins this game. Just look at Protoss. Colossus are stupid units with super low micro requirements and do devastating damage to everything on the ground. If anything, Blizzard simply needs to fix Terran late game. Make seeker missile viable by increasing range and speed. Make Thors/BC/Raven viable vs Toss by making mechanical units immune to Feedback, or at least Immune to the damage portion. Buff mech (as they are pretty much doing with HOTS) , give bio a nerf, and Terran will be in a perfect state. No more of these dumb situations where Terran and the other races have a super high or super low chance to win in early/mid/late game. AOE does not ruin the game. If anything, the Colossus makes the Terran or Zerg have to split their units and dodge them lasers. And if the Terran has more AOE units, then Protoss and Zerg will have to think up more and different strats. yes it does. one of the main problems with SC2 is terrible terrible damage that leads to short fights that cannot be microed and are boring for the spectator. aside from general bad damage design (hydra glass cannon and constant-stim-marines anyone?) the problem lies with the movement-AI that favours clumping. This clumping increases the damage of units per area manifold without any micro required. It, however, also enhances the potency of AOEs towards the ridiculous, making AOEs very hard to balance, because on the one hand you want AOEs like psi storm, colossi-lasers, or fungal growth to be strong even when only hitting 4-5 units but on the other hand you also cannot make it too strong against large numbers of units. --> you have to fiddle with damage and area but in the end there is no good middle ground because of the prevalence of hardcore clumping. You're just some random SC2 hater/BW elitist and you probably can't handle the death ball, that's why you're saying this type of misinformed information. It's just your opinion. I've seen plenty of people who micro around Colossi and storm and fungal. If you can't do it, doesn't mean it's bad. Swing and miss, slugger.
You do realize this is the definition of an ad hominem attack right? You're just as "random" a person as anyone else below 1000+ posts or whatever fucking limit people have for noticing/respecting you here, and the fact that you're arguing for a stupider game where two balls just smash together doesn't help your case. Do you REALLY think the "death ball" is what we should be looking for when SC1 had such deep, complex, micro-intensive engagements?
|
On April 14 2012 04:45 kcdc wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2012 04:36 sweetbabyjesus wrote:at above post. If nexus recall makes it into the game it will surely cost a lot of energy, so to have it as your making the first +1 zealot push (or whatever push you're talking about) they would have to give up chronoing their nexus, upgrades or warpgate research, ultimately making the push come later. So they would basically be sacrificing some of the speed of the push for safety, which is a fair trade imo. It wouldn't mess up the matchup too bad atleast. Edit: third post up  TL forum is too damn active! Nah, you open gate-nexus (which is totally safe if they keep the energy-for-cannon spell), make 3 zealots to force 16 lings, kill a few lings and drones, then recall to save the zealots. At home, you've made 3 more zealots while you attacked, so now you attack with 6 zealots. Then you kill some more lings and recall away again. You're trading nexus energy for Z's ability to set up their economy. Off of 1 gateway, you've forced at least 10 extra larvae to be spent on defense, and you've forced an early roach warren. Sure, you can't chrono. But the result is a million times better than what chrono can give you. It'd be insanely (probably unfairly) strong.
if you do that you delay your probe production and warpgate significantly, so you would slow your eco too. apart from that i doubt that the zerg wouldnt have roaches and a lot of harvester if you really march with zealots 2 times above the complete map, and the zerg can scout it easily.
|
AoE damage is one of the simple things that makes an RTS game interesting and fun to play. The problem SC2 has is that it's not uncommon to have 120 supply worth of army fit into 1/4 of a single screen, which leads to AoE damage being overly important. Balancing a game with tightly packed unit clumps by removing the AoE damage is probably easy enough to do, but it's going to make the game more boring.
|
Yeah but people have to learn to split their units. That's fun to watch and play. it's not exciting when people don't have to do that. Although I don't really favour the idea of a few high templar being able to take out my entire army. but that's the same with fungal, nukes or emps. i suppose unit clumping does affect game play, but that means less MKP splitting... you're telling me you want to see that go?
|
Wait, I thought strong Splash damage is what made BW so interesting. 2 Lurkers in a ramp could completely own a careless army.
HTs defending a position could stall for time or own a careless army because of how strong it was.
Siege tanks would just erase your army, same with spider mines.
All of that stuff made it so that splitting your army was actually effective.
I don't know why people are now acting as if crap didn't die fast in BW too. Hell, if you want to remember one of the main complaints about Warcraft 3 froma lot of BW fans is that stuff took forever to die.
Strong Aoe is what makes positional play and "zoning" so strong and interesting. What I do think causes an "issue"(which is subjective anyways) is the whole unlimited unit selection thing. Makes it so much easier to have all your stuff together, which by itself is not a huge problem but it does takes away from a lot of the small skirmishes all over the map that happened in BW(and do happen in SC2 when 2 players are actually equally skilled).
With limited Unit selection, the bigger your army was the harder it was to manage it, and it was also slower. So it gave much more incentive to be managing small armies all over the map. Cool micro came from small armies, even in BW micro took a more backseat role when the armies got huge.(You can't micro out of the 1st volley of siege tanks as much as people now pretend you could micro your way out of everything in BW) AoE was king in lategame in BW
|
On April 14 2012 09:16 reneg wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2012 08:47 deviator wrote:On April 14 2012 08:27 KULA_u wrote:On April 14 2012 08:13 deviator wrote:On April 14 2012 08:03 Scila wrote:On April 14 2012 06:29 deviator wrote:
IMO, Terran needs more AOE units. Protoss has Colossi and Zerg has Banes. And Hellions aren't that great of a unit, the battle hellion has shit range. They NEED the Shredder to deal with chargelots and mass ling No, AOE ruins this game. Just look at Protoss. Colossus are stupid units with super low micro requirements and do devastating damage to everything on the ground. If anything, Blizzard simply needs to fix Terran late game. Make seeker missile viable by increasing range and speed. Make Thors/BC/Raven viable vs Toss by making mechanical units immune to Feedback, or at least Immune to the damage portion. Buff mech (as they are pretty much doing with HOTS) , give bio a nerf, and Terran will be in a perfect state. No more of these dumb situations where Terran and the other races have a super high or super low chance to win in early/mid/late game. AOE does not ruin the game. If anything, the Colossus makes the Terran or Zerg have to split their units and dodge them lasers. And if the Terran has more AOE units, then Protoss and Zerg will have to think up more and different strats. yes it does. one of the main problems with SC2 is terrible terrible damage that leads to short fights that cannot be microed and are boring for the spectator. aside from general bad damage design (hydra glass cannon and constant-stim-marines anyone?) the problem lies with the movement-AI that favours clumping. This clumping increases the damage of units per area manifold without any micro required. It, however, also enhances the potency of AOEs towards the ridiculous, making AOEs very hard to balance, because on the one hand you want AOEs like psi storm, colossi-lasers, or fungal growth to be strong even when only hitting 4-5 units but on the other hand you also cannot make it too strong against large numbers of units. --> you have to fiddle with damage and area but in the end there is no good middle ground because of the prevalence of hardcore clumping. You're just some random SC2 hater/BW elitist and you probably can't handle the death ball, that's why you're saying this type of misinformed information. It's just your opinion. I've seen plenty of people who micro around Colossi and storm and fungal. If you can't do it, doesn't mean it's bad. Swing and miss, slugger. ...What? He brings up a lot of very valid points. The unit clumping in SC2 *does* make a lot of deathballs a lot stronger than in BW. (I realize they're two different games, but they are comparable). it makes balls of marines, and a stalkers substantially stronger. It also increases the power of AOE units (Banelings, colossi, fungal, storm) because all the units are a lot more tightly packed together. I personally don't care for gigantic amounts of splash damage. it makes watching things incredibly boring. And if the observer of a match is somewhere else for a few seconds, the entire battle can already be decided. There's no need to step in and act like you're a cool guy because you're standing up for SC2. SC2 is fun, and we all enjoy watching it. having all engagements last very very short periods of time isn't necessarily a good thing. It further reinforces the idea that you need to keep all your units closer together, because if your little straggler of 1/3 of your army gets caught out in the open trying to flank, it's just instantly destroyed. But then again, maybe people enjoy watching two players build up for 10 minutes so they can watch a 10 second engagement. I could be in the minority. That's always a possibility.
I feel like you guys need to watch some Parting v MKP.
The only splash that's a real problem is fungal, because it can't be microed against. Colossi I'm neutral on. Storm and blings are fine and make for some very exciting games.
|
On April 14 2012 10:40 windsupernova wrote:
Wait, I thought strong Splash damage is what made BW so interesting. 2 Lurkers in a ramp could completely own a careless army.
HTs defending a position could stall for time or own a careless army because of how strong it was.
Siege tanks would just erase your army, same with spider mines.
All of that stuff made it so that splitting your army was actually effective.
I don't know why people are now acting as if crap didn't die fast in BW too. Hell, if you want to remember one of the main complaints about Warcraft 3 froma lot of BW fans is that stuff took forever to die.
Strong Aoe is what makes positional play and "zoning" so strong and interesting. What I do think causes an "issue"(which is subjective anyways) is the whole unlimited unit selection thing. Makes it so much easier to have all your stuff together, which by itself is not a huge problem but it does takes away from a lot of the small skirmishes all over the map that happened in BW(and do happen in SC2 when 2 players are actually equally skilled).
With limited Unit selection, the bigger your army was the harder it was to manage it, and it was also slower. So it gave much more incentive to be managing small armies all over the map. Cool micro came from small armies, even in BW micro took a more backseat role when the armies got huge.(You can't micro out of the 1st volley of siege tanks as much as people now pretend you could micro your way out of everything in BW) AoE was king in lategame in BW
This man speaks the truth, please listen.
Maybe not a 12 unit selection, but unlimited is kind of dumb. There has to be skill evolved in moving an army, which right now SC2 doesn't really have.
|
well you are not really forced to do it, its actually better to move bio around in small hotkey groups. I think having the decision to select everything and a only a small part allows more things to do. If players only decide to use one possibility, this possibility is either by far the strongest, or they don't utilize the game enough. Right now the movement/selection mechanics sc2 provides are heavily underused, despite being pretty insane and actually taking work away from you.
|
I for one am excited about some of the changes I read from the developer's update. I disliked shredders and warhounds (if they keep warhound, they might as well make it a goliath) as well as some stuff like the replicant.
I think the idea for oracle is a little weird, not sure how much damage it would cause (would it be worth the cost? i wonder), but I agree with anything that adds more micro to the game, and essentially wouldn't really get added to the deathball (although if it still has the phase shift, I can see that being added to try and shut down key units in compositions eg siege tanks, medivacs, infestors, colossus, etc).
I cant WAIT to try out the new nydus systems, and I really hope that the burrow move for banelings is gone. I also still hope the Carrier comes back with moving shot (ie be able to micro it more) and some buffs/price drops to replace the Tempest for good, since they seem like they are intended to do the same thing anyway. I STILL hope void rays are at least removed, because I dislike such a strong hard counter for capital ships before one would even be able to get out a capital ship onto the field (same idea with corrupters for me, but thats the best way to fight colossus atm), AND i think it would discourage capital ship use.
I like the viper, and I love that the overseer is back (I dont mind losing an overlord for scouting if it can detect for me also), but I dislike the nerfs to the viper, as I think it would function better as a more powerful tier 3 unit as well as give zergs another option late game. It could possibly put players in situations to have to choose whether they want to stay at tier 2 with infestors for support, or whether they would benefit from just surviving tier 2 while trying to tech to vipers.
I don't mind the unlimited unit selection, and I don't mind the AoE either, as long as its difficult to control. Reavers and Lurkers in BW caused great damage but were offset by requiring more micro to be able to get the most out of. I believe it should be the same way in Starcraft 2. As long as the AoE isn't just a simple A-click away from winning (I'm thinking colossus stalker deathball here), then it's not as bad.
The only problem would be to balance stuff like Roach Ling Ultra armies (any combination of those more A-click centric armies), which might give lower level zerg players more advantage against a similarly skilled protoss trying to use AoE units requiring more micro (By this I mean, if all AoE for Terran & Protoss needed more micro, zergs would require significantly less apm to fight that same battle for ling ultralisk roach armies, which was balanced in BW by limited selection). To order balance it (without limiting selection), Zerg would definitely need to get more stuff micro, and I don't think that the Swarm host would cut it, seeing as how you could just burrow and right click a rally point. Having the units attack differently (like lurkers having to burrow to attack, or stuff you had to control manually without explicitly being able to simply A-command and watch), and by having more units that have a great differential in their speeds (requiring more precise control over how and when an army made up of a lot of different unit speeds engages, or else risk losing weaker faster units) might help to balance this out without having to limit selection.
As a side note, I think stuff like manual zealot charge (which I hope they add) would also add more micro to the protoss side along with blink stalkers, again I think that the big problem of adding more micro to every race would likely be making sure zerg have as much stuff to micro too, so they won't be able to just A-command their armies just as easily as before. I want more skill in the game as well, I just don't fully agree with the limiting the UI/pathing to do so, as I believe the same goal can be achieved through more micro (or more things to do in general).
What I did take from the update though, is that it seemed like they are still unsure of a lot of the stuff at the moment, which is probably why we didn't get another update in the first place. I'm thinking something along the lines of the "our ideas are too bad at the moment, so probably not worth showing yet" mentality that they had before when they first showed HoTS campaign stuff. So I'm still definitely excited, because they will likely take more ideas we have and take them into consideration at the very least seeing as how they have done so already.
|
On April 14 2012 11:01 Patate wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2012 10:40 windsupernova wrote:
Wait, I thought strong Splash damage is what made BW so interesting. 2 Lurkers in a ramp could completely own a careless army.
HTs defending a position could stall for time or own a careless army because of how strong it was.
Siege tanks would just erase your army, same with spider mines.
All of that stuff made it so that splitting your army was actually effective.
I don't know why people are now acting as if crap didn't die fast in BW too. Hell, if you want to remember one of the main complaints about Warcraft 3 froma lot of BW fans is that stuff took forever to die.
Strong Aoe is what makes positional play and "zoning" so strong and interesting. What I do think causes an "issue"(which is subjective anyways) is the whole unlimited unit selection thing. Makes it so much easier to have all your stuff together, which by itself is not a huge problem but it does takes away from a lot of the small skirmishes all over the map that happened in BW(and do happen in SC2 when 2 players are actually equally skilled).
With limited Unit selection, the bigger your army was the harder it was to manage it, and it was also slower. So it gave much more incentive to be managing small armies all over the map. Cool micro came from small armies, even in BW micro took a more backseat role when the armies got huge.(You can't micro out of the 1st volley of siege tanks as much as people now pretend you could micro your way out of everything in BW) AoE was king in lategame in BW
This man speaks the truth, please listen. Maybe not a 12 unit selection, but unlimited is kind of dumb. There has to be skill evolved in moving an army, which right now SC2 doesn't really have.
But it still takes skill to position that army properly. In high-level play you dont really wanna just 1a clump your stuff if your holding a zone. Banes, Fungal, Storm, Colossi, engagements can basically be won or lost based on how you position your army for engage.
I dont know what SC your watching, but go check out Parting V MKP GSL, Parting V Polt, watch the 20-30 minute games which for most of it involve constant pressure/drops/multitask. If anything, UMS makes this more possible because you can just have 1 hotkey for 4 different groups of untis and have instantaneous actions on all units in a squad, whereas in BW, if you had more than 12 your going to have to do some rabid boxing or ctrl-clicking. Stimming 12 mariens at a time was a pain, esp if you ended up boxing other units and it wouldnt let you use abilities with multiple types of unit in a selection, or when you ended up getting the same 12 marines stimmed. I personally prefer the current system.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
